National
A second shot at marriage in Maine
State LGBT group hopes to bring issue before voters
The head of the statewide LGBT rights group in Maine is excited about the prospects for a November ballot measure that would legalize same-sex marriage.
Betsy Smith, executive director of Equality Maine, said during a Washington Blade interview on Saturday that a win in Maine on the initiative — the first voter-initiated pro-LGBT measure to appear on a state ballot anywhere in the country — would be “hugely significant.”
“Our opponents are always saying that we can win marriage in the courts and we can win marriage in the legislature … but when it comes to the people, we can never win marriage,” Smith said. “That’s the biggest thing. If we win at the ballot, it will be through the support of Mainers, of Americans, and that’s a really, really important statement that Americans are now believing that the freedom to marry is what should be the law of the country.”
Last week, Equality Maine — as well as allied groups Freedom to Marry and Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders — submitted more than 105,000 signatures to Secretary of State Charles Summers, Jr., for certification of a ballot measure legalizing same-sex marriage. The number of names required for certification is 57,000, and Smith said she has significantly more than enough valid names to qualify for the ballot.
“There’s not a problem with the signatures,” Smith said. “We have, we think, around 85,000 to 90,000 valid signatures. So, in terms of validating, that’s not an issue.”
The secretary of state has 30 days to review the signatures and validate them, so the office will certify the measure by Feb. 26. Once the measure is certified, it won’t go directly to the ballot but to the Maine Legislature.
The legislature has three options. One would be passing the initiative on its own, an unlikely scenario that would result in the measure becoming law and the legalization of marriage rights for gay couples. Another, which Smith said she’s betting on, is the legislature indefinitely postponing action on the measure, sending it to voters after the lawmakers recess for the year in April.
But another option for the legislature that has drawn concern is the placing of an alternate question before voters alongside the proposition to legalize same-sex marriage. For example, the legislature could approve language asking voters to approve civil unions as an alternative to marriage, or same-sex marriage with extreme religious exemptions.
But Smith said she thinks the legislature won’t pursue this path, which could derail the effort to legalize same-sex marriage in Maine, because neither opponents nor supporters of same-sex marriage will want to go down that road.
“You’d have to have majority support for whatever you want to pass, so if it’s for civil unions, they would need to have a majority support civil unions,” Smith said. “Start thinking about where those votes come from. Well, the pro-marriage folks are not going to vote for it because we don’t want them to, and the anti-equality folks don’t support even civil unions for us, so when you start to add up how they get majority support, even though it’s a Republican legislature, it’s just really highly unlikely.”
But once the voter-initiated ballot measure is certified, the legislature can do nothing to kill it, so same-sex marriage would be on the ballot in Maine one way or the other.
November 2012 won’t be the first time that Maine voters have had to decide on the question of same-sex marriage. In 2009, Maine voters rejected a same-sex marriage law, signed by former Gov. John Baldacci (D), in a referendum by a vote of 53 percent.
Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia, said movement in favor of same-sex marriage within the American public at large and having President Obama at the top of the ticket bodes well for LGBT advocates the second time around at the ballot.
“While Maine is unusual politically, and can go back and forth between the parties and has an independent streak, it is very likely to back Obama again this fall,” Sabato said. “That probably helps passage. On the whole, I’d say it will be a tough fight, but prospects for approval are no worse than 50-50, and potentially could be better if the pro-marriage campaign is well run.”
One small change from 2009 that works in favor of passage is the change in the title for the measure. In 2009, the law was called “An Act To End Discrimination in Civil Marriage and Affirm Religious Freedom.” But the proposed title for the 2012 initiative is “An Act to Allow Marriage Licenses for Same-Sex Couples and Protect Religious Freedom.” Smith said research found this language played better with voters.
She said she believes an effective campaign will cost between $4 and $5 million. Although 2012 will be a competitive year and donors will have to make choices to give to the president, congressional races and ballot initiatives in other marriage states, Smith said her organization’s calculations “show we can raise that amount of money.”
But anti-gay forces are already making preparations to block these efforts.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, in a statement last week pledged to fight the initiative and derided efforts to legalize marriage equality in Maine after the state rejected it in 2009.
“NOM intends to vigorously fight this attempt by same-sex marriage advocates to impose gay marriage in Maine,” Brown said. “Maine voters rejected gay marriage barely more than two years ago. What part of ‘no’ don’t gay marriage advocates understand?”
But Smith offered a litany of reasons why the outcome of a ballot measure in 2012 would be different. She said her organization made the decision to go to the ballot in December after it started gathering signatures last summer.
Among them, Smith said, are internal polls showing that support for same-sex marriage is somewhere between 53 and 54 percent.
“We have been running a public education initiative that we ramped up significantly in 2011, including knocking on 110,000 doors, having conversations with around 40,000 Mainers about why marriage matters in an effort to engage them in what we call a persuasion conversation,” Smith said.
Smith added her organization looked at the strength of the coalition and the willingness of volunteers to collect 105,000 names to put same-sex marriage on the ballot, which she said “indicated to us that volunteers are really excited and happy to get back involved.”
“So those are the … things that make 2012 different and led us to make the decision that we have the window of opportunity to win,” Smith concluded.
New York
Men convicted of murdering two men in NYC gay bar drugging scheme sentenced
One of the victims, John Umberger, was D.C. political consultant
A New York judge on Wednesday sentenced three men convicted of killing a D.C. political consultant and another man who they targeted at gay bars in Manhattan.
NBC New York notes a jury in February convicted Jayqwan Hamilton, Jacob Barroso, and Robert DeMaio of murder, robbery, and conspiracy in relation to druggings and robberies that targeted gay bars in Manhattan from March 2021 to June 2022.
John Umberger, a 33-year-old political consultant from D.C., and Julio Ramirez, a 25-year-old social worker, died. Prosecutors said Hamilton, Barroso, and DeMaio targeted three other men at gay bars.
The jury convicted Hamilton and DeMaio of murdering Umberger. State Supreme Court Judge Felicia Mennin sentenced Hamilton and DeMaio to 40 years to life in prison.
Barroso, who was convicted of killing Ramirez, received a 20 years to life sentence.
National
Medical groups file lawsuit over Trump deletion of health information
Crucial datasets included LGBTQ, HIV resources
Nine private medical and public health advocacy organizations, including two from D.C., filed a lawsuit on May 20 in federal court in Seattle challenging what it calls the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’s illegal deletion of dozens or more of its webpages containing health related information, including HIV information.
The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, names as defendants Robert F. Kennedy Jr., secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and HHS itself, and several agencies operating under HHS and its directors, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration.
“This action challenges the widespread deletion of public health resources from federal agencies,” the lawsuit states. “Dozens (if not more) of taxpayer-funded webpages, databases, and other crucial resources have vanished since January 20, 2025, leaving doctors, nurses, researchers, and the public scrambling for information,” it says.
“These actions have undermined the longstanding, congressionally mandated regime; irreparably harmed Plaintiffs and others who rely on these federal resources; and put the nation’s public health infrastructure in unnecessary jeopardy,” the lawsuit continues.
It adds, “The removal of public health resources was apparently prompted by two recent executive orders – one focused on ‘gender ideology’ and the other targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’) programs. Defendants implemented these executive orders in a haphazard manner that resulted in the deletion (inadvertent or otherwise) of health-related websites and databases, including information related to pregnancy risks, public health datasets, information about opioid-use disorder, and many other valuable resources.”
The lawsuit does not mention that it was President Donald Trump who issued the two executive orders in question.
A White House spokesperson couldn’t immediately be reached for comment on the lawsuit.
While not mentioning Trump by name, the lawsuit names as defendants in addition to HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., Matthew Buzzelli, acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Jay Bhattacharya, director of the National Institutes of Health; Martin Makary, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration; Thomas Engels, administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration; and Charles Ezell, acting director of the Office of Personnel Management.
The 44-page lawsuit complaint includes an addendum with a chart showing the titles or descriptions of 49 “affected resource” website pages that it says were deleted because of the executive orders. The chart shows that just four of the sites were restored after initially being deleted.
Of the 49 sites, 15 addressed LGBTQ-related health issues and six others addressed HIV issues, according to the chart.
“The unannounced and unprecedented deletion of these federal webpages and datasets came as a shock to the medical and scientific communities, which had come to rely on them to monitor and respond to disease outbreaks, assist physicians and other clinicians in daily care, and inform the public about a wide range of healthcare issues,” the lawsuit states.
“Health professionals, nonprofit organizations, and state and local authorities used the websites and datasets daily in care for their patients, to provide resources to their communities, and promote public health,” it says.
Jose Zuniga, president and CEO of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC), one of the organizations that signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said in a statement that the deleted information from the HHS websites “includes essential information about LGBTQ+ health, gender and reproductive rights, clinical trial data, Mpox and other vaccine guidance and HIV prevention resources.”
Zuniga added, “IAPAC champions evidence-based, data-informed HIV responses and we reject ideologically driven efforts that undermine public health and erase marginalized communities.”
Lisa Amore, a spokesperson for Whitman-Walker Health, D.C.’s largest LGBTQ supportive health services provider, also expressed concern about the potential impact of the HHS website deletions.
“As the region’s leader in HIV care and prevention, Whitman-Walker Health relies on scientific data to help us drive our resources and measure our successes,” Amore said in response to a request for comment from the Washington Blade.
“The District of Columbia has made great strides in the fight against HIV,” Amore said. “But the removal of public facing information from the HHS website makes our collective work much harder and will set HIV care and prevention backward,” she said.
The lawsuit calls on the court to issue a declaratory judgement that the “deletion of public health webpages and resources is unlawful and invalid” and to issue a preliminary or permanent injunction ordering government officials named as defendants in the lawsuit “to restore the public health webpages and resources that have been deleted and to maintain their web domains in accordance with their statutory duties.”
It also calls on the court to require defendant government officials to “file a status report with the Court within twenty-four hours of entry of a preliminary injunction, and at regular intervals, thereafter, confirming compliance with these orders.”
The health organizations that joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs include the Washington State Medical Association, Washington State Nurses Association, Washington Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Academy Health, Association of Nurses in AIDS Care, Fast-Track Cities Institute, International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, National LGBT Cancer Network, and Vermont Medical Society.
The Fast-Track Cities Institute and International Association of Providers of AIDS Care are based in D.C.
U.S. Federal Courts
Federal judge scraps trans-inclusive workplace discrimination protections
Ruling appears to contradict US Supreme Court precedent
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has struck down guidelines by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission designed to protect against workplace harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
The EEOC in April 2024 updated its guidelines to comply with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), which determined that discrimination against transgender people constituted sex-based discrimination as proscribed under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
To ensure compliance with the law, the agency recommended that employers honor their employees’ preferred pronouns while granting them access to bathrooms and allowing them to wear dress code-compliant clothing that aligns with their gender identities.
While the the guidelines are not legally binding, Kacsmaryk ruled that their issuance created “mandatory standards” exceeding the EEOC’s statutory authority that were “inconsistent with the text, history, and tradition of Title VII and recent Supreme Court precedent.”
“Title VII does not require employers or courts to blind themselves to the biological differences between men and women,” he wrote in the opinion.
The case, which was brought by the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation, presents the greatest setback for LGBTQ inclusive workplace protections since President Donald Trump’s issuance of an executive order on the first day of his second term directing U.S. federal agencies to recognize only two genders as determined by birth sex.
Last month, top Democrats from both chambers of Congress reintroduced the Equality Act, which would codify LGBTQ-inclusive protections against discrimination into federal law, covering employment as well as areas like housing and jury service.
Adams Morgan queer bar broken into and vandalized
‘Things Like This’ embraces formula and plus-size visibility
Calendar: May 23-29
Comings & Goings
New doc chronicles gay hero’s journey from rape to forgiveness
Looking back at 50 years of Pride in D.C
WorldPride events round-up
Wes Moore signs HIV decriminalization bill
Marjorie Taylor Greene’s bill to criminalize gender affirming care advances
